[Idea] Resource Outposts

[Kolath]

So, I had an idea that I thought I'd toss out for comment. In previous iterations of Civ, it was often a viable tactic to build remote "resource" cities simply to grab a nearby strategic resource and then not worry about ever developing it.

Now with global happiness and culture points based on the number of cities you control, there is a major penalty to building tiny "resource" cities.

My proposal: add a new variant city type called an "Outpost" or some such. It would have these characteristics:

-Built with a settler
-Population 1 and does not grow
-Cannot build anything
-1 ring border (option to buy tiles up to 2 hexes away?)
-Costs maintenance
-No bombard ability
-No trade route
-Does not contribute to # of cities for happiness or culture purposes (the 1 pop does count for happy)

Optional: perhaps add the option to upgrade to a full-fledged city later? (a la puppet state being annexed later).

Essentially they would operate just like the "outposts" for the Kuriatos civ in the Civ4 mod Fall from Heaven 2. From a balance perspective, I think requiring a settler and having it cost a set maintenance would help balance the resource grabbing abilities it opens up. It would be a huge boon for small empires and for using the "useless" resources like water oil plots in the arctic next to a single tundra plot.


What do you think?

 

[Abremms]

So, I had an idea that I thought I'd toss out for comment. In previous iterations of Civ, it was often a viable tactic to build remote "resource" cities simply to grab a nearby strategic resource and then not worry about ever developing it.

Now with global happiness and culture points based on the number of cities you control, there is a major penalty to building tiny "resource" cities.

My proposal: add a new variant city type called an "Outpost" or some such. It would have these characteristics:

-Built with a settler
-Population 1 and does not grow
-Cannot build anything
-1 ring border (option to buy tiles up to 2 hexes away?)
-Costs maintenance
-No bombard ability
-No trade route
-Does not contribute to # of cities for happiness or culture purposes (the 1 pop does count for happy)

Optional: perhaps add the option to upgrade to a full-fledged city later? (a la puppet state being annexed later).

Essentially they would operate just like the "outposts" for the Kuriatos civ in the Civ4 mod Fall from Heaven 2. From a balance perspective, I think requiring a settler and having it cost a set maintenance would help balance the resource grabbing abilities it opens up. It would be a huge boon for small empires and for using the "useless" resources like water oil plots in the arctic next to a single tundra plot.


What do you think?

I like the idea a lot, but i would add one thing: give them a building, like a town hall or something that works like the courthouse in annexed cities so that if you ever want to you can develop it into a fully functional city.

 

[royal62184]

Sounds like colonies from Civ III. Just build on the resource and connect to your trade network. Just connecting it with roads is expensive and add a maintenance on top of it for the colony. that way it isn't feasible to connect to all the luxury resources on the map. They are just built on the hex itself with no BFC or ring though.

http://www.civfanatics.com/civ3/infocenter/

Colony:
A colony can be thought of as a Pop 1 city. If anyone walks into it, it just folds like a cheap suit and is essentially lost. Other civs cannot access resources in your colonies, however. So you're going to want to put a strong defensive unit or two in a colony and maybe even build a fort there, then fortify for assault. That way if they want your resources, they've got to be willing to fight for it.

A worker creates a colony in the same way a settler creates a city. Once a colony is created, say goodbye to your worker. If the colony is swallowed up into your borders, you don't get the worker back. This really forces you to think about where you want to put colonies: if you build a colony close to a city you know will thrive, you're essentially wasting a pop point because you know eventually that resource will be inside your borders.

Why would you build a colony instead of a city? First of all, because colonies are created by workers, it costs only 1 population point to build a colony, instead of 2 population points like a city. Second, unlike cities, you don't need to keep colonies happy; you simply build them and you get your resources. Third, you can build them in locations that are unfavorable for city-building, like jungle tiles. Finally, colonies don't require upkeep and maintenance the way that cities do. So, colonies can be a quick and inexpensive way to stake a claim on a resource, or a temporary measure used to insure the supply of resources until your empire's borders expand to surround them.

Colonies do not have any inherent defenses; while it is considered an act of war to attack any nation's colony, if a unit is not guarding that colony, it will be destroyed.

Not everything would be the same but at least you get the point.

 

[Kolath]

The one issue I have with that, is with no cross you have no way to get water-based resources (in particular I'm thinking oil).

 

[royal62184]

just make the equivalent using work boats.

 

[Terrance888]

It would be like a permenant fishing area?

A Fishing center? A Marine center?